New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Well, that hoax collapsed in a hurry! Re: Joke 6 cmte claim Trump assaulted drivers, aids, and SS agents

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Engle and Ornato have both testified under oath previously and are both said they are willing to come back and do it again to address these claims. Cheney is already backing away from the offer and Kinzger, rather than bring them in, is launching attacks on twitter against them. You will never hear any testimony from them and the ENTIRE reason will be because the committee is blocking it.

Despicable doesn't begin to describe this corrupt committee.
I've heard nothing about anyone "backing away" from them coming back to testify specifically about what Hutchinson has said.

What matters is Ornato's recollection of what he told Cassidy...because her testimony was about his account.
 

condorkristy

Mostly Liberal
Cassidy testified under oath. People who are saying she is wrong are not under oath. Several have defied subpoenas from the committee. If they have something to offer, let them show up and take the oath to tell the truth.

I don't see this as one sided at all....McCarthy pulled his own people from the committee....the fact that there are only two republicans is his fault.

The people who have testified are republicans, not democrats. They are people who worked for the Trump administration or supported Trump and voted for him.
All true.

I do like the sudden move by Trump supporters who are no longer screaming that they can't testify because of executive privilege though. Strange how once the polling started showing that more and more Americans believe (the obvious) that 1/6 was staged by the White House with right wing hate groups...executive privilege is no longer preventing folks from testifying. I didn't know that privilege depended on polling data.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
All true.

I do like the sudden move by Trump supporters who are no longer screaming that they can't testify because of executive privilege though. Strange how once the polling started showing that more and more Americans believe (the obvious) that 1/6 was staged by the White House with right wing hate groups...executive privilege is no longer preventing folks from testifying. I didn't know that privilege depended on polling data.
What matters in this is to support her. Call them in to find out exactly what happened in the limo...one to find out if Trump actually tried to order his limo to take him to lead the riot....minor detail is whether or not he shoved the SS agent or reached for the front seat...

If anyone really doubts how irrational Trump was, let's bring in his valet to tell us about Trump throwing dishes.
 

TBLee

Governor
Anthony Ornato has repeatedly disputed key White House conversations
Cassidy Hutchinson isn’t the only one whose version of events Ornato has disputed. It’s now happened publicly at least three times — with at least one person saying he lied, but another vouching for him.

Trying another link.
Perfect. Then we will undoubtedly see Ornato sworn in and before the committee. Liz is on it, and ready to call him to testify. Correct?
 

Bugsy McGurk

President

Oh, the web we weave when we first look to deceive!

:D
The straight skinny on this non-story…

 

JohnJohnson

Council Member
I've heard nothing about anyone "backing away" from them coming back to testify specifically about what Hutchinson has said.

What matters is Ornato's recollection of what he told Cassidy...because her testimony was about his account.
When pressed on whether the Secret Service members would speak on growing narrative discrepancies in witness testimonies, Cheney demurred........Pressed on whether such testimony from the Secret Service would be given live and publicized, she continued, "We have been working with the Secret Service; we've interviewed, as I said, a number of individuals in the Secret Service. We will continue to do so. And it is important that their testimony be under oath."




Cheney's motives are clear as day. Get a witness that after 18 months of not saying anything who will suddenly give you the propaganda you want. Display it and act like it is unchallenged fact even though it is 2nd hand. When first hand witnesses are willing to come in, deflect, and don't publicize it.

This is bad. It's corrupt, in fact. Kinzinger shouldn't be attacking potential first hand witnesses via twitter. Bring them in, let them testify under oath, let America see it for themselves.
 

JohnJohnson

Council Member
All true.

I do like the sudden move by Trump supporters who are no longer screaming that they can't testify because of executive privilege though. Strange how once the polling started showing that more and more Americans believe (the obvious) that 1/6 was staged by the White House with right wing hate groups...executive privilege is no longer preventing folks from testifying. I didn't know that privilege depended on polling data.
You got a case of diseased propaganda brain?
 

JohnJohnson

Council Member
That's the way I understood it.
Pat Cipollone -- he may try to claim executive privilege. It's still being worked out.
That's not the way Liz Cheney understands it. She won't even commit to having them publicly testify. A FIRST HAND WITNESS that directly contradicts given testimony. Awful doesn't begin to describe it. Corrupt does.

When pressed on whether the Secret Service members would speak on growing narrative discrepancies in witness testimonies, Cheney demurred......Pressed on whether such testimony from the Secret Service would be given live and publicized, she continued, "We have been working with the Secret Service; we've interviewed, as I said, a number of individuals in the Secret Service. We will continue to do so. And it is important that their testimony be under oath."

 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
When pressed on whether the Secret Service members would speak on growing narrative discrepancies in witness testimonies, Cheney demurred........Pressed on whether such testimony from the Secret Service would be given live and publicized, she continued, "We have been working with the Secret Service; we've interviewed, as I said, a number of individuals in the Secret Service. We will continue to do so. And it is important that their testimony be under oath."




Cheney's motives are clear as day. Get a witness that after 18 months of not saying anything who will suddenly give you the propaganda you want. Display it and act like it is unchallenged fact even though it is 2nd hand. When first hand witnesses are willing to come in, deflect, and don't publicize it.

This is bad. It's corrupt, in fact. Kinzinger shouldn't be attacking potential first hand witnesses via twitter. Bring them in, let them testify under oath, let America see it for themselves.
Seems the problem is they don't want to tistify under oath.
 

JohnJohnson

Council Member
Seems the problem is they don't want to tistify under oath.
They said they would. Cheney wouldn't give comment when asked if it would occur under oath AND IN PUBLIC. Pretty damn dishonest of you to suggest it's them not her who are trying to block public testimony, isn't it? Party over country, right?
 

sensible don

Governor
Supporting Member
What matters in this is to support her. Call them in to find out exactly what happened in the limo...one to find out if Trump actually tried to order his limo to take him to lead the riot....minor detail is whether or not he shoved the SS agent or reached for the front seat...

If anyone really doubts how irrational Trump was, let's bring in his valet to tell us about Trump throwing dishes.
Just clean the damn ketchup off the wall now !!!!!!!!!

Mr. President do you want your 4th big mac now or later, let me know.......
 

sensible don

Governor
Supporting Member
They said they would. Cheney wouldn't give comment when asked if it would occur under oath AND IN PUBLIC. Pretty damn dishonest of you to suggest it's them not her who are trying to block public testimony, isn't it? Party over country, right?
is this the best you right wingers got, pretty pitiful yur whole focus is on the greatest loser's rage. That is fine with me but very pathetic to hang your hat on this. You do know the court of public opinion has already weighed in and those indy voters luv dem sum insurrection ! All this testimony for the 20-25 million people to consume live !

BTW - I don't think the greatest loser could overpower a 12 year old girl let alone a ss agent, even if he was a stooge for him. Imagine a 75 year old coming at you trying to be tough, you just laugh and tell them to sit their fatazz down and know your role....and please stop, really !
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
They said they would. Cheney wouldn't give comment when asked if it would occur under oath AND IN PUBLIC. Pretty damn dishonest of you to suggest it's them not her who are trying to block public testimony, isn't it? Party over country, right?
I interpreted her statement as being under oath was a possible roadblock...
What does that have to do with loyalty to a party?
 

Addy

Rebuild With Biden!
That's not the way Liz Cheney understands it. She won't even commit to having them publicly testify. A FIRST HAND WITNESS that directly contradicts given testimony. Awful doesn't begin to describe it. Corrupt does
MV expressed her reasoning... being under oath shouldn't be a problem if they are really wanting the facts out there.
Even without their testimony -- they can't and haven't denied Trump was insisting on going to the Capitol. Despite knowing/warned of the dangers beforehand.
 

Colorforms

Senator

middleview

President
Supporting Member
They said they would. Cheney wouldn't give comment when asked if it would occur under oath AND IN PUBLIC. Pretty damn dishonest of you to suggest it's them not her who are trying to block public testimony, isn't it? Party over country, right?
1. Someone with the Secret Service said they would testify under oath.
2. We haven't heard from the agents themselves. Who knows what they are saying to the committee.
 
Top